CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Data Analysis Technique
2. Description of the Research
In this research, the researcher as an English teacher and Mrs.
Atmaliyati S.S. as the collaborator conducted the research in two cycles and each cycle consists of planning, implementing, observing and reflecting. Before conducting the cycles, the researcher firstly conducted the pre-cycle or Reconnaisance to observe the process of teaching and learning in the classroom and to analyze the score of pretest.
a. Reconnaissance
In order to find the problems related to the teaching and learning process of class X MIA in SMA Muhammadiyah Pekalongan East Lampung, the researcher conducted some sequences of the observation. The observation was conducted on Friday, September 29th 2017. Based on the observation, it was known that the process of teaching and learning in the classroom is ineffective and not conducive. It was described when the teacher delivered the material, there were no students who made a good response actively. The
students tended to keep silent all the time unless the teacher asked them to speak up.
After observing the classroom activity, the researcher collected the pretest score of students‟ speaking performance. The pretest was conducted on Friday, October 6th 2017 by measuring the students‟
speaking performance.
The students‟ score of pretest was collected by asking the students to perform in front of the class in order to do a brief introduction. They were asked to tell about themselves orally. The result of pretest could be seen on the table below:
Table 4.3 The Pretest Score
NO NAME SCORE NOTE
1 AH 60 Failed
2 DFA 46 Failed
3 DR 66 Failed
4 DA 66 Failed
5 EW 56 Failed
6 HGP 70 Passed
7 INM 60 Failed
8 IPW 50 Failed
9 MQA 60 Failed
10 MK 60 Failed
11 NS 66 Failed
12 RP 70 Passed
13 SA 70 Passed
14 WS 58 Failed
15 YO 60 Failed
16 YWY 60 Failed
17 BI 66 Failed
18 HFS 70 Passed
Total Score 1114
Average 61,89
Highest Score 70
Lowest Score 46
Table 4.4
Students‟ Mark of Pretest of Speaking Performance Pretest No Mark Frequency Category
1 ≥ 70 4 Passed
2 < 70 14 Failed
Total Students 18
Based on the pretest above, it could be showed that the average score of the students in pretest was 61,89. Furthermore, the highest score of the students‟ pretest was 70 and 46 as the lowest. In addition, related to the minimum mastery criteria (KKM) of the English subject (≥ 70), there were only 4 students who had passed the minimum mastery criteria (KKM) and 14 students were failed. In short, it could be concluded that the students‟ speaking performance was very poor.
From the data above, the researcher concluded that the students‟
score of speaking performance was poor. Besides, this number implies that; a. The students spoke less fluently and had few long breaks. b. The students‟ speech was not comprehensible and there were some mispronunciations too. c. The students used limited vocabularies and inappropriately. d. The students had many grammatical mistakes.
After discussing with the collaborator, Mrs. Atmaliyati, S.S., the researcher had identified the field problems found in teaching and learning process as follows:
a. The students were not confident to speak English.
b. The students did not speak English fluently.
c. The students had difficulties in using grammar.
d. The students found difficulties in pronouncing some English words.
e. The students were lack of vocabularies.
f. The students often used Bahasa Indonesia to speak, especially to answer the teacher‟s questions.
g. The students depended on the materials given by the teacher and did not initiate to suffice their needs of materials.
h. The students had fewer practices of speaking.
i. The students were not totally giving more attention to their teacher.
j. The method used by the teacher did not engage to the students to speak up.
k. The teacher did not develop the media to teach speaking effectively.
b. Cycle I
Cycle I consists of planning, implementing, observing and reflecting. Here is the details explanation of each step in Cycle I.
1) Planning
According to the result of the pretest above, the researcher has identified and found the problems after taking the students‟ pretest
score. Therefore, the researcher and collaborator prepared several things related to teaching and learning process such as the English subject lesson plan, the material, media, observation sheet that contains about list of students‟ names and activity, and evaluation for the next meeting.
2) Implementing
In this step, the researcher conducted the implementation of the treatment in the next meeting. The researcher conducted the treatment on Friday, October 13rd, 2017. In this meeting, the role of the researcher was as an English teacher and Mrs. Atmaliyati, S.S.
was as a collaborator. The researcher started the meeting by praying, greeting, checking attendance list and asking the condition of the students. Afterwards, the researcher gave the material about recount text.
At the beginning of teaching and learning process, the researcher asked to the students about recount text. Some of the students did not know at all about recount text. Secondly, the researcher explained about definition, generic structure, social function and language feature of recount text.
Afterwards, the researcher explained about the concept of Pecha Kucha presentation method. The researcher divided the students into four groups that contained 4-5 students. The researcher gave the example of Pecha Kucha presentation in slides
using power point. Then, each group were asked to organize a presentation about their personal experience in 20 slides. Each group was given a chance to discuss and provided some pictures to be showed in their slides as the content of the presentation. As long as the students studied in group, the researcher went around in the class and helped the students to compose a good presentation. In another hand, the students must be pointed out the picture only and took a note to be presented orally. Then, the students should practice their works in front of the class. The researcher guided all students of each group to be actively in their works. Then each group presented the result of discussion. Afterwards, the researcher gave some additions of their work and performance.
In the end of meeting, the researcher gave feedback to the students of the learning process. The researcher gave motivation and informed to the students about the activities in the next meeting. Then, the researcher closed the material by praying together.
After did a treatment, the researcher gave post-test to the students. The post-test was conducted on Friday, October 20th, 2017. The post-test was done to know the improvement of the students‟ speaking performance after giving treatment. The researcher asked the students to do a Pecha Kucha presentation
about their personal experience. The result of post-test in cycle I could be seen on the table, as follows:
Table 4.5 Post-Test I Score
NO NAME POST-TEST 1 NOTE
1 AH 68 Failed
2 DFA 50 Failed
3 DR 70 Passed
4 DA 68 Failed
5 EW 60 Failed
6 HGP 76 Passed
7 INM 68 Failed
8 IPW 50 Failed
9 MQA 60 Failed
10 MK 66 Failed
11 NS 70 Passed
12 RP 70 Passed
13 SA 76 Passed
14 WS 50 Failed
15 YO 58 Failed
16 YWY 60 Failed
17 BI 64 Failed
18 HFS 70 Passed
Total Score 1154
Average 64,11
Highest Score 76 Lowest Score 50
Table 4.6
Students‟ Mark of Post-test I of Speaking Performance No Mark Frequency Category
1 ≥ 70 6 Passed
2 < 70 12 Failed
Total Students 18
From the table 3, it could be analyzed that the students‟
average score was 64, 11. The highest score was 76 and the lowest score was 50. Based on the minimum mastery criteria (KKM), there were 6 students that had passed on post-test I or got score
≥70. It means that in cycle I, the students‟ achievement was improved enough, but it was not successful yet.
3) Observing
In this step, the researcher observed the students activities during the learning process. Besides, there was a collaborator who also observed the teacher‟s performance of the researcher during teaching the students using the method of Pecha Kucha presentation.
In the learning process, there were five indicators used and mentioned to know the students‟ learning activities. Every student who was active in learning process was given a thick in the observation sheet. Then, the students were not active in learning process, let the observation sheet empty. It can be seen on the appendix. The indicators of the students‟ activities were:
a) The students attended the class of English subject.
b) The students paid attention while in the process of teaching and learning.
c) The students worked in group actively.
d) The students were confident to present their presentation.
e) The students had a good understanding in their own material.
The result of the students‟ learning activities could be seen as follows:
Table 4.7
The Students‟ Activities in Cycle I
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage 1 The students attended the class of English
subject.
18 100%
2 The students paid attention while in the process of teaching and learning.
14 77.78%
3 The students worked in group actively. 10 55.55%
4 The students were confident to present their presentation.
5 27.78%
5 The students had a good understanding in their own material.
6 33.33%
Total students 18
The table showed that the presence of the students in attending English subject class was 18 students (100%). Besides, there were 14 students (77.78%) who gave attention to the teacher‟s
explanation, 10 students (55.55%) who active in group, 5 students (27.78%) who were confident to deliver their presentation, and 6 students (33.33%) who understood the materials.
Based on the result above, it could be inferred that the learning process of cycle I was not successful yet because only two
activities, they were the students‟ presence and the students attention, that got the percentage of ≥ 70% and the others got
<70%.
4) Reflecting
In this step, the researcher concluded that cycle I did not run well because most of students did not achieve the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). It could be seen from the result of pretest and post-test I score.
From the result of observation in cycle I, there were some problems that found, as follows:
a) There were some students that shown unenthusiastic to the teacher‟s explanation.
b) Some students did not active in group.
c) Some students had many more anxiety and less of confidence.
d) Some students did not understand the material.
Based on the result of reflection in cycle I, there were some problems to be revised in cycle II, such as:
a) The teacher gave more motivation to the students in order to encourage them in studying harder and made the learning process more interesting, communicative and attractive.
b) The teacher gave more detail explanation and questions after explaining the materials to control the students‟
comprehension.
c) The teacher guided the students who they were not active yet in a group discussion.
Furthermore, the result of the learning result in cycle I before and after doing the treatment could be analyzed in the following table.
Table 4.8
Students‟ Score at Pretest and Post-Test I No Name Pretest
Score
Post-Test I Score
Improvement Explanation
1 AH 60 68 8 Improved
2 DFA 46 50 4 Improved
3 DR 66 70 4 Improved
4 DA 66 68 2 Improved
5 EW 56 60 4 Improved
6 HGP 70 76 6 Improved
7 INM 60 68 8 Improved
8 IPW 50 50 0 Constant
9 MQA 60 60 0 Constant
10 MK 60 66 6 Improved
11 NS 66 70 4 Improved
12 RP 70 70 0 Constant
13 SA 70 76 6 Improved
14 WS 58 50 -8 Decreased
15 YO 60 58 -2 Decreased
16 YWY 60 60 0 Constant
17 BI 66 64 -2 Decreased
18 HFS 70 70 0 Constant
Total 1114 1154 40
Average 61, 89 64,11 2,22
In this research, pretest and post-test I had done individually.
It was aimed to know the students‟ speaking performance before and after the treatment. From the result of pretest and post-test I, it can be analyzed that there was an improvement from the students‟
result score. It could be seen from the average score in pretest 61,89 and post-test I 64,11. Although there was an improvement of the students‟ achievement, cycle I was not successful yet because only 6 students (33.33%) who passed in post-test I. It can be concluded that cycle I was not successful yet because the indicator of success was not reached yet and the researcher had to revise the teaching and learning process in the next cycle. Therefore, this research would be continued in the next cycle.
c. Cycle II
The cycle II was similar with cycle I. It was divided into planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting. It would be explained more as follows:
1) Planning
Based on the observation and reflection in cycle I, it showed that cycle I was not successful yet. Therefore, the researcher and the collaborator tried to revise the several problems that appeared in cycle I and arranged the planning for continuing in cycle II. The researcher prepared the lesson plan, material, media, and post-test II.
2) Implementing
The description of the teaching and learning process of cycle II was not different from the previous cycle. In each treatment, the researcher tried to make the students be more active. The
implementation of this step was conducted in two meetings, namely: treatment and post-test II.
The treatment in cycle II was conducted on Friday, October 27th, 2017. It was started by greeting and asking the students condition. The researcher as a teacher explained the material about procedure text. The teacher asked to the students to mention about definition of procedure text, generic structure, social function, and language features. Moreover, the teacher divided the students into 4 groups as in previous cycle. In groups, the students discussed the text about “How to make food and beverage”. Then, the teacher asked them to discuss about the pictures of the procedure text. The teacher guided the students to be active in group and after all the groups finished the discussion, the teacher asked each group to present their work.
In the end of meeting, the teacher closed the meeting and gave motivation to the students to study hard and try to speak up more in order to get good scores especially in English subject.
After giving the treatment in cycle II, the researcher conducted post-test II on Friday, November 3rd, 2017. The test was asked the students to present their presentation in front of the class by using the method of Pecha Kucha presentation. It was the same type as the first cycle but in the different kind of text. The result of post- test II could be seen on the table below:
Table 4.9 Post-Test II Score
NO NAME POST-TEST II NOTE
1 AH 76 Passed
2 DFA 70 Passed
3 DR 76 Passed
4 DA 70 Passed
5 EW 58 Failed
6 HGP 76 Passed
7 INM 70 Passed
8 IPW 58 Failed
9 MQA 70 Passed
10 MK 70 Passed
11 NS 76 Passed
12 RP 70 Passed
13 SA 76 Passed
14 WS 70 Passed
15 YO 60 Failed
16 YWY 70 Passed
17 BI 68 Passed
18 HFS 70 Passed
Total Score 1254
Average 69,67
Highest Score 76 Lowest Score 58
Table 4.10
Students‟ Mark of Post-test II of Speaking Performance
No Mark Frequency Category
1 ≥ 70 14 Passed
2 < 70 4 Failed
Total Students 18
Based on the table above, it could be seen that the students‟
average score in post-test II was 69,67. The highest score was 76 and the lowest score was 58. According to the minimum mastery criteria (KKM), 77.78% students had passed the test. Most of the students could improve their speaking performance. It means that cycle II was successful.
3) Observing
In this step, the role of the researcher and the collaborator was same as the previous step in the cycle I that was to observe the students‟ learning activities and teacher‟s performance. There were also five indicators used to know the students‟ activities.
Based on the result of the observation sheet in cycle II, the researcher indicated that learning process in cycle II was successful. The result score of students‟ learning activities observation, as follows:
Table 4.11
The Students‟ Activities in Cycle II
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage 1 The students attended the class of
English subject.
18 100%
2 The students paid attention while in the process of teaching and learning.
16 88.89%
3 The students worked in group actively. 15 83.33%
4 The students were confident to present their presentation.
14 77.78%
5 The students had a good understanding in their own material.
13 72.22%
Total students 18
The table above showed that the students‟ activity in cycle II was improved. The students‟ activities that had high percentage were students‟ presence in English subject class (100%) and the second-high percentage was students‟ attention (88.89%), then the third was students‟ who active in group (83.33%). The fourth-high percentage was the students‟ confidence (77.78%) and the last was the students‟ understanding (72.22%). Based on the result above, the researcher indicated that learning process in cycle II was successful because all indicators of the students‟ learning activities got the percentage of ≥ 70%.
Based on the result of the research in cycle II, it could be inferred that cycle II was successful. There was > 70% of students who passed the post-test. It means that the students‟ speaking performance had improved. From the result above, the researcher concluded that this research was successful and would not be continued to the next cycle.
The students score on speaking performance from post-test I to post-test II could be seen on the table below:
Table 4.12
Students‟ score at Post-Test 1 and Post-Test II No Name Post-Test I
Score
Post-Test II Score
Improvement Explanation
1 AH 68 76 8 Improved
2 DFA 50 70 20 Improved
3 DR 70 76 6 Improved
4 DA 68 70 2 Improved
5 EW 60 58 -2 Decreased
6 HGP 76 76 0 Constant
7 INM 68 70 2 Improved
8 IPW 50 58 8 Improved
9 MQA 60 70 10 Improved
10 MK 66 70 4 Improved
11 NS 70 76 6 Improved
12 RP 70 70 0 Constant
13 SA 76 76 0 Constant
14 WS 50 70 20 Improved
15 YO 58 60 2 Improved
16 YWY 60 70 10 Improved
17 BI 64 68 4 Improved
18 HFS 70 70 0 Constant
Total 1154 1254 100
Average 64,11 69,67 5,56
Based on the result above, it could be inferred that Pecha Kucha presentation method could improve the students‟ speaking performance because there was an improvement from the total average in post-test I 64,11 became 69,67 in post-test II. In the cycle II, most of the students could develop their speaking performance. It means that cycle II was successful.
This table is to describe the comparison of the students‟ result in post-test I and post-test II.
Table 4.13
The Comparison between Students‟ Speaking Performance in Post-test I and Post-test II
No Name Post-Test I Score
Post-Test II
Score Note
1 AH 68 76 Improved
2 DFA 50 70 Improved
3 DR 70 76 Improved
4 DA 68 70 Improved
5 EW 60 58 Decreased
6 HGP 76 76 Constant
7 INM 68 70 Improved
8 IPW 50 58 Improved
9 MQA 60 70 Improved
10 MK 66 70 Improved
11 NS 70 76 Improved
12 RP 70 70 Constant
13 SA 76 76 Constant
14 WS 50 70 Improved
15 YO 58 60 Improved
16 YWY 60 70 Improved
17 BI 64 68 Improved
18 HFS 70 70 Constant
Total 1154 1254
Average 64,11 69,67
Based on the table of the comparison between students‟ result score in post-test I and post-test II, there were 14 students (77.78%) who passed the test in post-test II. Therefore, the researcher concluded that the research was successful because the indicator of success had been achieved in this cycle. It means that it would not be continued to the next cycle.
B. INTERPRETATION 1. Cycle I
In the first step of Cycle I, the researcher discussed with the collaborator, Mrs. Atmaliyati, S.S. to prepare some kinds of teaching designs. Then, in the implementation stage, the researcher gave the treatment to the students. The treatment was conducted by teaching the students using Pecha Kucha presentation method. Furthermore, the
researcher gave the post-test in the next meeting and the post-test was named post-test I.
Afterwards, by analyzing the result of post-test I, the researcher concluded that there were 6 students (33.33%) students who passed the post-test I. The lowest score was 50, the highest score was 76, and the average score was 64,11.
From the result of the students‟ score in pretest and post-test I, there was an improvement from the students‟ result score. It could be seen from the average score in pretest 61,89 and post-test I 64,11. Although there was an improvement of the students‟ achievement, cycle I was not successful yet because only 6 students (33.33%) who passed in post-test I.
It means that in the cycle I, the students‟ achievement was improved enough but it was not successful yet because the indicator of success was not reached yet.
2. Cycle II
After analyzing the students‟ score in the post test of cycle I, the researcher had to conduct the next cycle because the indicator of success was not reached yet. In the cycle II, the researcher gave the treatment then the post-test II. After that, the researcher analyzed the result of post-test II and concluded that there were 14 students (77.78%) who passed the test because they got score ≥ 70. In post-test II, the lowest score was 58, the highest score was 76, and the average score was 69,67.